A Saturday short walk

Interesting piece in the S-T about Wareham adopting remote participation for meetings.the law that allows the same also allows for local adoption of such a policy. I understand the arguments for the same, and what one community chooses to do is that communities business.

Simply as on citizen, I just hope it doesn't happen in our town.  As the saying goes, just because you have a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

For me it just seems government should be conducted on a face to face basis.  While the technology is there to keep it "face to face", I will go one step further and say the faces should all be physically present in the same room.

The technology is only suppose to be used for specific reasons.  It is not suppose to be used as a matter of convenience.

Maybe because the concept is fairly new, as far as for government meetings.  I suppose that could be part of my reluctance.

If one reads the regulations adopted under the law, the logistics are a bit of a nightmare.

It would not solve quorum issues.  You still must have a quorum of members physically present for a meeting. So right off the bat, one has to ask what is the point?

Sure someone who could not get to the meeting, could still participate.  Indeed such a thing could be pivotal on some issues.

Do we want that though?

 Let's get back to the logistics.  Every meeting room will need to be equipped properly.  If video is to be involved, all persons in the meeting room need to be able to "see".  Audio must be provided with or without video so everyone can "hear".  Heck we can't even "mic" the meeting rooms now so people actually in the room can hear.

You could have an eight member committee with three people participating remotely.  I know, not insurmountable problems, yet do we really want board members, elected or appointed, participating remotely?

Sure, groups of all kinds use remote participation now.  But these groups are Boards of Directors or committees for private entities. Webinars for informational purposes.

I will grant you the intent is for the procedure to be used sparingly. As with most things that are intended for sparing use, what begins that way, seldom stays that way.

The matter has been previously discussed and addressed by the Board of Selectmen who are empowered to make the decision.  It was decided it was not a good fit for Fairhaven.  If in the future it is revisited, before adoption if that were to occur, I would hope everything would be looked into before deciding to put a system in place.

In the end, as withe most options, how you feel about it is an opinion.  My opinion, we are subjected to enough remote government as is.

Moving on ...

There was another chance at open line format yesterday.  Seems every time there is one, no one has anything to say.  Well not quite true.  Three different people did send in things for posting that expressed the same sentiment.  I didn't post them. Comments about no comments just seem to fall into the "one liner" category.

It is what it is.  Just a tad interesting how when there is a topic, some many seem to want to go off topic; and when there is no topic, no one wants to raise one.  It is what it is.

By the way, today is not an open line format.

Five weeks and a couple of days until the B of H election.  Chatter is mildly building around town.  I seem to be spending a whole lot of time trying to convince to many people that they should actually go out and vote. Trying to view the matter from the eyes of the bulk of the voters, it seems a whole lot of them simply don't care.

Makes one shake their head.  I would guesstimate 7 out of 10 people have a punch list of complaints about government at all levels.  Yet more than 7 out of 10 usually sit home at the polls in local elections.

People simply don't grasp the fact that one of the biggest complaints, i.e. representing "the people" arises from the fact that "the people" are as much to blame as those elected.

It is simple math folks.  When people stay away from the polls in droves, a candidate running for office does not need to look at the overall picture, but essentially the concerns of less than 14% of the people.  They need to energize perhaps 300 or so people (plus or minus, and usually minus).  They need to catch the favor of the super voters.  They then needed their energized base to get them 3 votes each.  Do that, and in an election with a 25% turnout or less, you win.

Sad but true, the cold reality is local elections aren't about convincing more than 50% of all the people.  You only have to worry about less than 13% of the eligible voters

Anyway, this time around it may be you need to worry about even less.  I hope I am wrong on that part of it.

Enough for today.

Be safe.